Nexus - 1501 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

SOLVING THE PROBLEM OF THE COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT SOLVING PROBLEM THE THE COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT A theory called Exact Classical Mechanics (ECM) questions the validity of Einstein's general relativity and poses an alternative "i-ther" concept that is in line with quantum electrodynamics and Eastern philosophy. he Big Bang theory of the creation of the universe gained impetus in 1980 when Alan Guth introduced his idea of "inflation". Unfortunately, the creation it postulated could not be switched off. Consequently, the theory implied that the universe is expanding at a rate billions of billions of times greater than is remotely possible. This presented a problem, that of the "cosmological constant", which to this day remains an unsolved, vexed question as far as cosmologists are concerned. However, as described here, a solution was published in 1994 in Russia. The Big Bang is said to have started from a "quantum fluctuation" from the void of zero energy (nothingness) that should have collapsed to nothing again after a brief instant. However, before this happened, inflation according to Guth's idea cut in, causing a fantastically rapid explosion during which all the energy we know about appeared from nothing and within a ball of only one-metre radius. From Einstein's E = mc? equation, energy (E) can transmute into the mass (m) of matter. The gas-like cloud continued to expand under its own inertia, with much of its energy condensing to form the universe of stars and planets that we observe, as described by Guth and Steinhardt (1989). Unfortunately, the theory was flawed from the start due to the problem of the cosmological constant. It also said that the expansion was forever slowing due to gravity. Then, all cosmologists were astounded and dismayed by the results of observations of remote supernovae, published by B. Schwarzchild (1998), which conclusively showed that expansion is speeding up. But this is not all that is wrong in both cosmology and physics. New Scientist, in its 10 December 2005 issue, published an alarming report about the state of physics. It concerned the International Solvay Conference that had taken place in Brussels the previous week. Nobel laureate David Gross, in summing up, admitted that physicists were in a state of utter confusion and that some new approach was needed. Everything they were doing, like string theories and the search for quantum gravity, had failed, but nobody had any idea what to do next. Now, top physicist Lee Smolin (2007) has recently published a book in which he says that his generation has failed to achieve anything worthwhile in over the last quarter of a century, despite greater numbers of physicists than ever before and unprecedented high levels of funding. The award of $60,000 to Professor Cahill in 2005 to find an alternative to relativity and propose new experiments highlights that physicists are now recognising that Einstein's theories are unsatisfactory. But, as we shall soon see, the theory of Exact Cla al Mechanics (ECM) has already provided a satisfactory alternative. Several phys Ss, including the Nobel laureate Brian Josephson, have attempted but failed to fault the logic. I think I found the reason for this sad state of affairs way back, starting in 1984, when I discovered an alarming logical error concerning gravity and, later, four logical errors in Guth's inflation theory. Worse, every effort I made to point these out by writing to scientific journals only resulted in letters of rejection which showed that all assessors, except one, had received inadequate grounding in both mechanics and thermodynamics. The one exception was the famous physicist Professor J. Vigier of Paris. In his reply dated 2 August 1987, he admitted that the first critique was valid and said it needed publication. But even he was unable to get it into Physics Letters A, for which he was the consultant on gravitation. When it becomes impossible for sound critiques to get past assessors or editors, then science is in danger of diversion onto false tracks. The evidence suggests that this has already happened. First, let me say that I stand in awe of physicists’ brilliance in sophisticated by Ron Pearson © 2007 Email: rdp@ronaldpearson.plus.com Website: http:/Awww.pearsonianspace.com Email: rdp@ronaldpearson.plus.com Website: http:/Awww.pearsonianspace.com NEXUS = 53 by Ron Pearson © 2007 DECEMBER 2007 — JANUARY 2008 www.nexusmagazine.com